On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:59:50AM -0700, Hefty, Sean wrote: > > The general parameters would be the same as for RC. Should we create a new > > ai_flag ? or a new port space ? > > There's a ai_qp_type field available. I think the RDMA TCP port > space would work.
Not sure the port space matters at all? Is there anything additional CM information for XRC other than requesting an XRC QP type? (XRCSRQ or something?) > > Is it really necessary to support rdma_getaddrinfo, rdma_create_ep and the > > new APIs ? > > I think so, yes. At least XRC needs to be handled, even if some of > the calls just fail as unsupported. I'd like to see a strong rational for leaving any of the new API unsupported for XRC - IMHO it should all be doable. The new API is supposed to be simplifying, we want people to use it.. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
